Repeating a shameful past?

It is important to briefly recall the history of Indian involvement in Iraq under the British colonial government and then to ask whether we...

It is important to briefly recall the history of Indian involvement in Iraq under the British colonial government and then to ask whether we have come full circle.

The British first colonised Iraq when it was carved out of the Ottoman Empire for its oil. In 1917, G.S. Barnes of the viceroy8217;s executive council explained why Iraq was important: 8216;8216;I hope that the administered territory will include the Mesopotamia Iraq oilfield. Oil is almost the only important commodity in respect of which the British Empire is not self-contained 8230; our needs are likely to grow immensely in the immediate future8217;8217;.

Sir Percy Cox, an Indian Civil Service ICS officer, delineated the boundaries of Iraq. The ICS provided the bulk of the administrators. The British, in reaction to a popular revolt that was ruthlessly suppressed, sought a compromise by establishing a modicum of Arab participation in the running of the government. In this stabilisation process, the Indian Army was used and those who participated in the suppression were decorated with an Iraq medal.

Indian revenues considerably subsidised Britain8217;s take-over of its oil. And the role of Indian labour was central. The administration was not eager to use Iraqi labour. Indians also operated many other facilities in West Asia such as the Aden refinery. Records show that during and just after World War I, Indian labour had no right to even a day8217;s leave per week. Under military law, employees could be detained indefinitely even beyond their term of contract. Workers were told they would be shot if they attempted to escape. Col R.L. Kennion, magistrate at Mohemmerah on February 25, 1916, commenting on their living conditions, noted that, widthwise, each man had a foot of sleeping space.

History is repeating itself. The question is: In what capacity does the Indian government intend to send its Army to Iraq after the Anglo-American invasion which itself was based on lies? As a mercenary force where soldiers are directly paid in dollars; as a 8216;8216;force on hire8217;8217; where payments are made through contracts extended to India Inc., or as a colonial army sent to serve the current colonial masters of the present Indian government?

And will the Indian Administrative Service follow the army so that the Anglo-Americans can concentrate on 8216;8216;reconstructing8217;8217; Iraq with Iraqi money through the American and British Corporations with some crumbs thrown at India Inc? And will the cheap Indian labour follow to increase the profits of the corporations?

Every self respecting Indian should stand up and oppose any support to the invasion and recolonisation of Iraq.